ADEYEMO ABIODUN V FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
April 11, 2025ORIGIN OIL AND GAS LIMITED & ANOR v. NEPAL OIL AND GAS SERVICES LTD & ORS
April 11, 2025Legalpedia Citation: (2018) Legalpedia (CA) 16126
In the Court of Appeal
HOLDEN AT LAGOS
Thu Feb 15, 2018
Suit Number: CA/L/224C/2017
CORAM
PARTIES
ABUTU EMMANUEL APPELLANTS
NIGERIA CUSTOMS SERVICE BOARD RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Respondent charged the Appellant and five others at the Federal High Court Lagos, with the offence of counterfeiting customs documents and seals contrary to Sections 162 (a) and (d) and 166 of the Customs and Excise Management Act. The court found the Appellant and the other Accused persons guilty as charged, sentenced him to two (2) years’ imprisonment on each of the five counts, and ordered that the sentence shall run consecutively meaning that the Appellant was sentenced to ten years, imprisonment. Peeved with the judgment of the trial court, the Appellant has appealed to this court on the ground that the prosecution did not provide the accused with Proof of Evidence despite repeated request from the Accused.
HELD
Appeal Allowed
ISSUES
Whether the Appellant in the instant appeal suffered violation of right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
FORMULATION OF ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION – WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEAL IS OBLIGATED TO ADOPT THE ISSUES FORMULATED BY PARTIES
“I need to state at the onset that in the determination of an appeal, this Court is not expected to allow itself to be tied to the apron strings of fancy submissions by Counsel in their briefs, formulating endless issues for determination for the Court to consider and resolve. This Court has no regimental obligation to follow the issues for determination crafted by parties if the issues are not such that will clearly address the real issues in contention between the parties. This Court may reframe or adopt issues for determination formulated by either of the parties.”
FAIR HEARING – CONCEPT OF FAIR HEARING UNDER SECTION 36(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA 1999, (AS AMENDED)
“The right to fair hearing/trial is undoubtedly a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, (as amended) by the provisions of Section 36 thereof. Commenting on the importance of a similar provision (Section 33) under the extinct 1979 Constitution, the Supreme Court of Nigeria held in Sikiru Adewunmi Bakare Vs. Lagos State Civil Service Commission & Anor (1992) LPELR – 711 (SC), as follows:
“Section 33 is an entrenchment in the Constitution of the common law principle of the right to fair hearing which is an inherent and necessary element in the determination of every dispute.
The provisions of Sub-section (1) of the Section ensures that the rights and obligations of every citizen is finally and conclusively determined, after hearing the person whose rights and obligations are involved and would be affected by the decision. It is therefore a fundamental and constitutional right of the person whose rights and obligations would be affected by any determination to be heard before such rights and obligation is conclusively determined… Hence the person whose rights and obligations are in issue must be given an opportunity to be heard in defense of such rights by the Court or Tribunal established for the purpose.”
See also: Dingyadi vs. INEC (2010) 18 NWLR (pt. 1224) 154 SC; and in Duke Vs. Government Of Cross River State & Ors (2013) LPELR – 19887 (SC), the Court also held as follows:
“By the term “fair hearing”, within the context of Section 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution, is that a trial ought to be conducted in accordance with all the legal norms designed to ensure that justice is done at all cost to all the parties. The principle of fair hearing is that both sides must be given an opportunity to present their respective cases. It implies that each side has the right to know what case is being made against it and be given the opportunity to react or respond thereto. Fair hearing does not necessarily mean a hearing that involves oral representation. However, a hearing is fair if all the parties are given opportunity to state their case even in writing.”
SUMMARY TRIAL – WHETHER THE FEDERAL HIGH COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT CRIMINAL TRIALS SUMMARILY
“I read the case of George Ikpekhia vs. FRN (2014) LPELR-24145 (CA) where the issue dealing with summary trial before the Federal High Court was dealt with meticulously and comprehensively by my learned Brother OSEJI JCA, where he said as follows:
“It is not in doubt that criminal trials are by law conducted summarily in the Federal High Court. In this regard, Section 33(1) and (2) of the Federal High Court Act provides that
“33(1). Subject to the provisions of this Section, criminal proceedings before the Court shall be conducted substantially in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the provisions of that Act shall, with such modifications as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the provisions of this Act, have effect in respect of all matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Court. (2) Notwithstanding the generality of Subsection (1) of this Section, all criminal causes or matters before the Court shall be tried summarily.”
SUMMARY TRIAL – WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON CAN BE SERVED WITH PROOF OF EVIDENCE IN SUMMARY TRIAL
“With regards to the necessity to serve proof of evidence on an accused person, I carefully read the decision in Uwazuruike & Ors vs. A.G. Federation (2013) LPELR – 20392 (SC), where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that summary trials are short and fast, and cases tried summarily are disposed-off in a prompt and simple manner and only entail scanty summary of the evidence the prosecution would rely on. The Court further held that where there is request by the Appellant to be served proof of evidence the proof may be provided. My Lord RHODES – VIVOR JSC said as follows and I quote:
“Section 277 of the Criminal Procedure Act, provides for summary trials. Summary trials are short and fast. Cases tried summarily are disposed in a prompt and simple manner. Attached to a charge to be tried summarily are scanty summary of the evidence prosecution would rely on. Put in another way. It is not all the evidence relied on by the prosecution that is made available to the accused person before trial…Where the accused person is not satisfied with the information attached to the charge in a summary trial he is expected to apply to the Court. To order the prosecution to provide more facts to the accused person is entirely in the Courts discretion, see: Gaji vs. State (1974-75) 9 NSCC pg. 294”.
FAIR HEARING – DUTY ON COURT TO ENSURE FAIR HEARING BETWEEN THE LITIGANTS
“A Judge as the acknowledged repository of the law has the duty at all times in the discharge of his judicial duties to parties to ensure that justice is not only done to the parties but is seen to be transparently done. The Court must accord parties basic opportunity to be heard in a matter that is devoid of appearance of unfairness in a trial.”
SUMMARY TRIAL – WHETHER AN ACCUSED PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO BE SERVED WITH THE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE TO BE RELIED ON BY THE PROSECUTION
“The law is fully settled that even in summary trials before the Federal High Court an accused person must be aware of what he is coming to meet in Court, this is perhaps the main basis for the decision in Uwazuruike vs. A.G Federation(supra), that scanty summary of the evidence to be relied on by the Prosecution shall be served on the Accused, and where the accused seeks for further details the Court may in its discretion consider making an order that the materials sought by the accused be made available.”
SUMMARY TRIAL – EFFECT OF REFUSAL TO PROVIDE AN ACCUSED PERSON WITH THE SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
“In a trial where one of the parties is refused access to material documents, or bare and scanty information on what he is coming to meet in Court, certainly the trial will be faulty and therefore defeat the principles of natural Justice, see: Joseph Agbahomovo & Anor vs. Apata Eduyegbe & Ors (1999) LPELR-224 (SC).”
CRIMINAL TRIAL – AN ACCUSED PERSON IS ENTITLED TO KNOW WHAT HE IS COMING TO CONFRONT IN COURT
“To hold that the Appellant is not entitled to any scanty evidence of what he is coming to meet in Court is a misconception of the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Federal High Court Act, and I must hold that an accused person is entitled to know what he is coming to confront in Court, a criminal trial must not be shrouded in mysteries, an accused person must not be left to embark on logical deduction or guess-work on what is coming to meet in Court, where an accused person says nothing was served on him beyond the paper containing the charge against him, the trial Court has a duty to ensure that such an accused person obtains basic information on what he is coming to meet in Court.”
RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF A BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO FAIR HEARING
“Where the right to fair hearing is breached, the proceedings in the course of which the breach occurred and the decision arrived at by the Court are a nullity: Akinfe vs. The State (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 85) 729 at 753.”
PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING – EFFECT OF NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF FAIR HEARING AS ENSHRINED IN SECTION 36 (6) OF THE 1999 CONSTITUTION OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA (AS AMENDED)
“Indeed from the facts of this case, the fundamental human right of the Appellant as provided by Section 36 (6) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended) has been breached and it therefore attracts a nullity of the entire proceedings of the lower Court. See the cases of Koleosho v. FRN(2014) LPELR – 22929 (CA), per UWA, JCA at pages 17 – 20, paras F – A; Joseph v. The State (2013) LPELR – 22604 (CA) where it was held that compliance with this provision of the Constitution is mandatory and failure to so do will render the whole trial a nullity.”
RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON – RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED PERSON IN CRIMINAL MATTER
“Also in the case of Okoye & Ors v. COP & Ors (2015) LPELR – 24675 (SC), the Supreme Court of Nigeria on the right of an accused person held thus:
“…the evidence against the accused, including statements of witnesses for the Prosecution, would be necessary for the preparation of his defence. So they are ‘facilities’ within the meaning of the said Section 36 (6)(b)… It is in accord with the intention of the legislature to provide a person charged with a criminal offence with sufficient opportunity to prepare his defence and to prevent surprises being sprung on him at trial. This is fundamental, as the accused person could be facing the loss of his life or personal liberty…”
See also the case of Akabogu v. The State (2016) LPELR – 40929 (CA) where the court held that:
“…I am humbly of the strong opinion that any person charged whether summarily or by information to face criminal charges at the High Court is entitled as provided by the Constitution to details of the offence including the proofs of evidence by the police in order to facilitate his defence to the charge.
See Olabode V. The State (2009) 11 NWLR (PT 1152) 254 At 258, Adeniyi V. The State (2001) 25 WRN 117 at 120.”
CASES CITED
None
STATUTES REFERRED TO
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999|
Federal High Court Act Cap F12 LFN 2004|
Federal High Court Act Laws of the Federation 2004|
